If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What I'm not willing to do is spend a bunch of excess money on organic fair-trade arugula and gourmet ketchup.
Being poor sucks. I know: I've been poor more than once. Part of that suckiness is that you don't get to have your choice of stuff. Don't like it? Stop doing the stuff that makes you poor.

I thought the topic was making the SNAP dollars go to healthier choices. A family of four gets about $125 per week. Sitting here just now I did a shopping list for a family of four for one week and came up with $114.

I thought the topic was making the SNAP dollars go to healthier choices.

The greater goal is to cut waste in SNAP, to separate the needy from the greedy. Healthy choices are one way to do that. No matter how few people are willing to admit it, people will stop using SNAP when they can't get a gravy train of junk food out of it. Ultimately, my goal (and I suspect Roe's, but I wouldn't make that an affirmative statement) is to make being poor suck again. A lot fewer people would be on food stamps if that meant that life really sucked for them.

Yes, that sounds really harsh. Sorry. Get over it, those of you who have gotten bent out of shape over the notion that it would do a societal good to make being poor suck. The simple, undeniable reality is that if it really sucks to be on food stamps, if it is embarrassing and demeaning, if you will do pretty much anything to not have to deal with crappy, monotonous, bland food choices, the embarrassment, and the shame of being on food stamps, then you will do something to change that, like get off your ass and go get a fucking JOB! People will flee from food stamps and other such government assistance so long as it sucks bad enough to be on them.

No, that's not happy or fun. But it most definitely is motivation to get people to stop resting in what was a safety net, but is now a safety hammock (h/t Boog).

Originally Posted by Novaheart

A family of four gets about $125 per week. Sitting here just now I did a shopping list for a family of four for one week and came up with $114.

I'll take your word for it on the dollar amount. The one I hear batted around most is $134/month, which is for a single person getting the maximum benefit, and then that is somehow transmuted into their entire grocery bill. Here's a big hint: the "S" in SNAP stands for "supplemental;" SNAP was never intended to pay for all or even most of someone's food needs. It was always meant to fill in the gaps. That's why I would prefer to see SNAP go away and instead tell people that if they go on food stamps, that is their only source of food, but that's just me and my larger plan for world domination.

I would knock out jello and yogurt immediately, as well as frozen fries. I don't see volumes involved here, so I may well be inclined to knock out some other things. Seven bags of frozen vegetables seems an awful lot, but again I don't know how big these bags are.

The greater goal is to cut waste in SNAP, to separate the needy from the greedy. Healthy choices are one way to do that. No matter how few people are willing to admit it, people will stop using SNAP when they can't get a gravy train of junk food out of it. Ultimately, my goal (and I suspect Roe's, but I wouldn't make that an affirmative statement) is to make being poor suck again. A lot fewer people would be on food stamps if that meant that life really sucked for them.

Yes, that sounds really harsh. Sorry. Get over it, those of you who have gotten bent out of shape over the notion that it would do a societal good to make being poor suck. The simple, undeniable reality is that if it really sucks to be on food stamps, if it is embarrassing and demeaning, if you will do pretty much anything to not have to deal with crappy, monotonous, bland food choices, the embarrassment, and the shame of being on food stamps, then you will do something to change that, like get off your ass and go get a fucking JOB! People will flee from food stamps and other such government assistance so long as it sucks bad enough to be on them.

No, that's not happy or fun. But it most definitely is motivation to get people to stop resting in what was a safety net, but is now a safety hammock (h/t Boog).

I'll take your word for it on the dollar amount. The one I hear batted around most is $134/month, which is for a single person getting the maximum benefit, and then that is somehow transmuted into their entire grocery bill. Here's a big hint: the "S" in SNAP stands for "supplemental;" SNAP was never intended to pay for all or even most of someone's food needs. It was always meant to fill in the gaps. That's why I would prefer to see SNAP go away and instead tell people that if they go on food stamps, that is their only source of food, but that's just me and my larger plan for world domination.

I would knock out jello and yogurt immediately, as well as frozen fries. I don't see volumes involved here, so I may well be inclined to knock out some other things. Seven bags of frozen vegetables seems an awful lot, but again I don't know how big these bags are.

I was shopping for a family of four in my scenario. I got the benefit amount from some website. The prices I used are from memory and even now I would add a couple of dozen eggs and some cornbread to the list. You'll note that there is very little meat. The frozen fries are actually cheaper than raw potatoes and kids like them. Kids are kids. Seven two pound bags of frozen vegetables mixed with rice is a lot of good food for a cheap price. If the Chinese can live on it, our poor can too.

The greater goal is to cut waste in SNAP, to separate the needy from the greedy. Healthy choices are one way to do that. No matter how few people are willing to admit it, people will stop using SNAP when they can't get a gravy train of junk food out of it. Ultimately, my goal (and I suspect Roe's, but I wouldn't make that an affirmative statement) is to make being poor suck again. A lot fewer people would be on food stamps if that meant that life really sucked for them.

Yes, that sounds really harsh. Sorry. Get over it, those of you who have gotten bent out of shape over the notion that it would do a societal good to make being poor suck. The simple, undeniable reality is that if it really sucks to be on food stamps, if it is embarrassing and demeaning, if you will do pretty much anything to not have to deal with crappy, monotonous, bland food choices, the embarrassment, and the shame of being on food stamps, then you will do something to change that, like get off your ass and go get a fucking JOB! People will flee from food stamps and other such government assistance so long as it sucks bad enough to be on them.

No, that's not happy or fun. But it most definitely is motivation to get people to stop resting in what was a safety net, but is now a safety hammock (h/t Boog).

I'll take your word for it on the dollar amount. The one I hear batted around most is $134/month, which is for a single person getting the maximum benefit, and then that is somehow transmuted into their entire grocery bill. Here's a big hint: the "S" in SNAP stands for "supplemental;" SNAP was never intended to pay for all or even most of someone's food needs. It was always meant to fill in the gaps. That's why I would prefer to see SNAP go away and instead tell people that if they go on food stamps, that is their only source of food, but that's just me and my larger plan for world domination.

I would knock out jello and yogurt immediately, as well as frozen fries. I don't see volumes involved here, so I may well be inclined to knock out some other things. Seven bags of frozen vegetables seems an awful lot, but again I don't know how big these bags are.

If SNAP is only meant to be supplemental (for those who don't have enough), then it doesn't seem right to say that's all they can eat. I think we can make being poor suck without making them go hungry with a rule like that. I think getting a lot stricter in what can be purchased would help out in making people get prideful/pissed off enough to want to get off of SNAP.

If SNAP is only meant to be supplemental (for those who don't have enough), then it doesn't seem right to say that's all they can eat. I think we can make being poor suck without making them go hungry with a rule like that. I think getting a lot stricter in what can be purchased would help out in making people get prideful/pissed off enough to want to get off of SNAP.

You get stuck between channels sometimes , don't you?

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

If SNAP is only meant to be supplemental (for those who don't have enough), then it doesn't seem right to say that's all they can eat. I think we can make being poor suck without making them go hungry with a rule like that. I think getting a lot stricter in what can be purchased would help out in making people get prideful/pissed off enough to want to get off of SNAP.

Apparently I'm typing in some special invisible typeface again.

Originally Posted by Adam Wood

Yep. I've been complaining about this for years. It really frosts me to see someone going through the line at Kroger or Wal-Mart or where ever with a boatload of Doritos, Ho-Hos, Little Debbies, and a ton of soft drinks, and then when it's time to pay, out comes the SNAP card.

This (restrictions on SNAP) should have been the case long, long ago. It should be much more like WIC: you get certain named staple items, and that's that. You can have certain lean meats (in limited quantities), various fruits and vegetables (again in limited quantities), milk, real juice, rice, day-old white and wheat bread, a limited number of cans of soup, a limited number of actually nutritious heat-and-eat dinners (real meals, not pizza pockets), nutritious cereals, a very limited amount of raw sugar, a limited amount of raw flour, a limited amount of eggs, a limited amount of pasta (inexpensive pasta like spaghetti, not ready-made ravioli or whatever), vegetable prep (tomato paste, crushed garlic, etc.), a limited amount of peanut butter, a limited amount of jelly/jam/preserves (basic generic, not the expensive "gourmet" kind), and that's IT. No potato chips. No ice cream. No cookies or cookie dough. No cokes. No Kool-Aid or other such crap. None of it. An absolute minimum of processed anything.

If you're going to eat on my nickel, then you'll eat what I tell you to and like it. I'm happy to make sure you don't starve, but you're going to eat reasonable meals with reasonable portions and it's going to be healthy for you. And you're DAMN well going to cook it for yourself and not get ready-made junk food. Don't like it? Go buy your own damn food.

Originally Posted by Adam Wood

Pardon my callousness, but I really don't give a shit. These people are allegedly soooo poor they can't afford to feed themselves. Well, fine, I'm perfectly willing to help out someone who is actually so poor that they cannot afford to feed themselves (and their associated rug-rats). What I'm not willing to do is spend a bunch of excess money on organic fair-trade arugula and gourmet ketchup. If a little bit of jelly or some ketchup has some HFCS in it, then that's fine by me. It's a minimal amount when compared to cokes and Ding-Dongs. I'm not interested in marginally-better-for-you, very expensive food; I'm interested in getting them three solid, square meals a day so that they're not starving. Getting rid of processed foods will go a million miles toward that goal; worrying about HFCS in a few grams of jelly goes a few feet.

Being poor sucks. I know: I've been poor more than once. Part of that suckiness is that you don't get to have your choice of stuff. Don't like it? Stop doing the stuff that makes you poor.

Yep. I've been complaining about this for years. It really frosts me to see someone going through the line at Kroger or Wal-Mart or where ever with a boatload of Doritos, Ho-Hos, Little Debbies, and a ton of soft drinks, and then when it's time to pay, out comes the SNAP card.

This (restrictions on SNAP) should have been the case long, long ago. It should be much more like WIC: you get certain named staple items, and that's that. You can have certain lean meats (in limited quantities), various fruits and vegetables (again in limited quantities), milk, real juice, rice, day-old white and wheat bread, a limited number of cans of soup, a limited number of actually nutritious heat-and-eat dinners (real meals, not pizza pockets), nutritious cereals, a very limited amount of raw sugar, a limited amount of raw flour, a limited amount of eggs, a limited amount of pasta (inexpensive pasta like spaghetti, not ready-made ravioli or whatever), vegetable prep (tomato paste, crushed garlic, etc.), a limited amount of peanut butter, a limited amount of jelly/jam/preserves (basic generic, not the expensive "gourmet" kind), and that's IT. No potato chips. No ice cream. No cookies or cookie dough. No cokes. No Kool-Aid or other such crap. None of it. An absolute minimum of processed anything.

If you're going to eat on my nickel, then you'll eat what I tell you to and like it. I'm happy to make sure you don't starve, but you're going to eat reasonable meals with reasonable portions and it's going to be healthy for you. And you're DAMN well going to cook it for yourself and not get ready-made junk food. Don't like it? Go buy your own damn food.

WIC wasn't much better in terms of fraud, though. The NY Post discovered a bunch of bodegas that would by WIC coupons for 50 cents on the dollar and then turn them in for the full value. The stores were empty, at least in terms of food, but drugs were readily available, if not on the premises, then nearby. Today, the cards are worked the same way, with fake purchases rung up in exchange for cash. A recent expose (again, by the Post), shows how the scam works and identified a number of stores where it was common.

The program is rife with fraud, waste and abuse. It should be shut down.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

The two are not mutually exclusive. There is considerable support for the idea that obesity is a form of malnutrition.

There is considerable support for a lot of wrong ideas. It doesn't make them valid.

Obesity is caused by, in most cases, over-indulgence in food and lack of exercise, and it is epidemic among the poor. Supplementing food purchases for overweight people is like corporate welfare for fatcats, except that in this case, the fat is literal, rather than a metaphor.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

How do you get "social inferiors" out of this list?

I think a good first step would be to ban all carbonated beverages containing sugar or aspartame.
Ban anything containing hfcs.
Ban candy.
Ban chips and doodles but not pretzels.
Ban anything made by Hostess, Little Debbie, or Hormel.
Ban real mayonnaise and fake cheese.

There isn't a thing on that list which I haven't eaten in excess in the past. It has nothing to do with social status, it has to do with coming around to the realization that if you want to live and be healthy you have to make good choices about what you eat. The same goes for smoking. It's not "low class" to smoke, it's just a terrible risk that doesn't really bring much in the way of reward.

I and other members of my family have also noticed that there is a considerable amount of conditioning to our tastes. Many of the things we thought were delicious treats 30 years ago are much less appealing now. Oysters and oyster sandwiches, ham, steaks, fry bread, greasy pizza, scrapple, and a host of stuff my grandmother cooked aren't nearly as good as we remember them being.

You stop eating meat for a couple of months and then walk into a grocery store sometime when the AC isn't running. It smells like something died.

Sorry, but the list sounded elitist to me. Generally, when someone talks about banning something that does them no harm, my social engineering filter goes into overdrive. I apologize. However, you must admit that there is a certain amount of prejudice against certain foods among elite opinion makers (note Bloomberg's soda bans). Regardless, my point is that banning certain purchases will not only not prevent them from being made, but given the nature of SNAP fraud, won't even make a dent in the scope of the programs. People are making straw purchases for cash in order to buy drugs or alcohol. Do you really believe that banning products with corn syrup is going to make any difference?

Originally Posted by Lanie

If SNAP is only meant to be supplemental (for those who don't have enough), then it doesn't seem right to say that's all they can eat. I think we can make being poor suck without making them go hungry with a rule like that. I think getting a lot stricter in what can be purchased would help out in making people get prideful/pissed off enough to want to get off of SNAP.

Being poor sucks already, but again, the issue is not whether we should ban certain food items on a list, but whether the program should exist at all. Federal welfare programs are the worst administered in terms of fraud, waste and abuse, because the end recipients are too far away from the people who administer the program. Welfare needs to be a local/county issue, where people are known by their friends and neighbors, and con jobs and fraud are more likely to be found out before massive appropriations are made. If you want to help people, the worst thing that you can do is launch money bombs at them from across the country. Let their communities work with them and the help that they receive will be tailored to them by people who know and care for them, rather by faceless bureaucrats.

The program is rife with fraud, waste and abuse. It should be shut down.

Surely the same can be said about the military, but we don't shut it down. I'm not trying to get under your skin, but you and I know that any program, government or private, is going to have some waste or fraud. While I think we can agree that the military is more essential than SNAP, you can't simply say that where there is fraud, waste, and abuse there is no success or redeeming quality.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Obesity is caused by, in most cases, over-indulgence in food and lack of exercise, and it is epidemic among the poor. Supplementing food purchases for overweight people is like corporate welfare for fatcats, except that in this case, the fat is literal, rather than a metaphor.

Sorry, but the list sounded elitist to me. Generally, when someone talks about banning something that does them no harm, my social engineering filter goes into overdrive. I apologize. However, you must admit that there is a certain amount of prejudice against certain foods among elite opinion makers (note Bloomberg's soda bans).

I think that there is considerable reason to believe that some foods are worse than others. High Fructose Corn Syrup is suspect for a host of problems. I find it interesting that my grand parents ate a ton of sugar and starchy stuff and never carried more than 10 pounds of excess weight. Now we have an entire generation of people fighting their weight. HFCS was invented in 1957 and ubiquitous by 1975.

Surely the same can be said about the military, but we don't shut it down. I'm not trying to get under your skin, but you and I know that any program, government or private, is going to have some waste or fraud. While I think we can agree that the military is more essential than SNAP, you can't simply say that where there is fraud, waste, and abuse there is no success or redeeming quality.

Actually, in the case of SNAP, I can simply say it, because it is true. The military's fraud, waste and abuse is minute in comparison, and since I've been in, I've come to understand the many layers of controls that we have in place to try to prevent it. OTOH, SNAP and its predecessors were known for the lack of oversight and fraud mitigation. The very basis of the system encourages the abuses. In the previous NY Post series on WIC fraud in NYC, they determined that fully one-quarter of the grocery stores in Manhattan were fronts for the abuses cited. In another recent expose, the Post found that The program resists reform because the basic premise is flawed. Giving money directly to people who haven't earned it (or giving them vouchers that can be redeemed for cash or debit cards that can do cash advances) guarantees that the money will be spent without any oversight. A few examples:

Photo: Food-stamp fraud in New York has turned into foreign aid — to black-market profiteers in the Dominican Republic.

Last week, The Post revealed how New Yorkers on welfare are buying food with their benefit cards and shipping it in blue barrels to poor relatives in the Caribbean.

But not everyone is giving the taxpayer-funded fare to starving children abroad. The Post last week found two people hawking barrels of American products for a profit on the streets of Santiago.

“It’s a really easy way to make money, and it doesn’t cost me anything,” a seller named Maria-Teresa said Friday.

The 47-year-old Bronx native told The Post she scalps barrels of Frosted Flakes and baby formula bought with welfare money in the United States.

Maria-Teresa said she gets new barrels every few weeks from her sister, who buys everything at a Western Beef on Prospect Avenue near East 165th Street in Foxhurst.

The scamming sibling pays $75 per barrel to transport the items to the DR through Mott Haven’s Luciano Shipping. Sometimes the family fraudsters take advantage of a special: three barrels for the price of two.

Maria-Teresa said she uses some of the products but vends the rest out of her Santiago home, providing markdowns of $1 to $2 compared to what her buyers would pay in local shops.

“I don’t know how much of a business it is, but I know a lot of people are doing it,” she said.

So, what you have is a case of people using the money that they get from the government to buy food that they obviously don't need and reselling it, and since the food was free to them in the first place, anything that they make is a profit, which can be spent on anything else. That's one kind of fraud. Here's another:

Brooklyn bodega clerk is slashed in the face after telling thug he couldn't use food stamps to buy beer

A knife-wielding maniac slashed Mutahar Murshed Ali at Express Deli at Broadway and Gates in Bushwick, Brooklyn, when the clerk refused to sell thug beer.

A drunken man viciously carved up a Brooklyn bodega clerk’s face Thursday after being told he couldn’t use food stamps to buy a $1.25 bottle of beer.
“Sell it to me,” the suspect barked at Mutahar Murshed Ali, 34, in the Express Deli in Bushwick about 7:35 a.m. “Don’t get me mad.”
Ali told the Daily News he held his ground, telling the enraged drunk he couldn’t buy the 22-ounce Colt 45 with a food stamp card. The suspect hurled a racial slur and then stormed out of the store, Ali said.
Minutes later, the man returned, dove across the counter and sliced open Ali’s face — opening up a gash from his upper lip to his left sideburn.

In this case, you have a perp using violence to force a store owner to sell contraband. Most stores don't need the threat, they simply sell what the perp wants, and mark it up as something else. Beer can be sold as bottled water, just by using a different bar code. Ring up enough, and you've covered the cost and made a nice markup, since the perp isn't paying his own money, he doesn't care. And that doesn't include the fake purchases made from empty bodegas people rack up hundreds of dollars at a time in bogus sales. Of course, there are other ways to get money from the cards:

Welfare recipients took out cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs — where they presumably spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than diapers, a Post investigation found.

A database of 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer records from January 2011 to July 2012, obtained by The Post through a Freedom of Information request, showed welfare recipients using their EBT cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs inside Hank’s Saloon in Brooklyn; the Blue Door Video porn shop in the East Village; The Anchor, a sleek SoHo lounge; the Patriot Saloon in TriBeCa; and Drinks Galore, a liquor distributor in The Bronx.

The fraud in these systems is pervasive, and unlike the armed forces, serves no purpose. They need to go.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

I think that there is considerable reason to believe that some foods are worse than others. High Fructose Corn Syrup is suspect for a host of problems. I find it interesting that my grand parents ate a ton of sugar and starchy stuff and never carried more than 10 pounds of excess weight. Now we have an entire generation of people fighting their weight. HFCS was invented in 1957 and ubiquitous by 1975.

There are lots of valid reasons to believe that some foods are unhealthier than others. However, there is no valid reason that we should be forced to pay for the food consumption of people who are capable of working but choose not to.